Are we worth it?.....
More and more, this homeowners association is becoming an association of special interests that exists solely for the benefit of a few. Those few fail to see that their actions are destroying the very thing they want, enforced covenants. Their unwillingness to compromise and consider others "views", only continues the downward spiral we are in today.
By any measure or evaluation, this is a failed homeowners association that represents all members in a common desire for an affordable higher quality of living and recreation than the surrounding areas. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many. The tail is wagging the dog. By that I mean, a few selfish self interest members are in control of the association and are willing to do anything to continue.
Why does this situation continue?
We are composed in majority by members who are only here part time. Their main interests are their permanent homes in other areas. Six hundred dollars a year for an RV or camping spot is a good deal. Throw in an electrical hookup, septic, garbage and water, and the deal is even better. At what point would these people become concerned or even interested? Thousand dollars a year? two thousand? Higher fines? They are treated like second class citizens. They don't like that much, but apparently not enough to even vote.
For those who reside here permanently, the same economics apply. They seem to become more concerned about dues and assessments than the part time members. Part of that is because they are past their earning years. They also have more free time to be aware of the mess called Surfside. Just by being here full time, they have more information and discuss the issues with their friends and neighbors. Many retired full time residents, like myself, have spent a life time working and dealing with the everyday stress that goes with it. They do not want to continue that stress after they retire. Some have volunteered their life time of experience and skills to better the association, to only throw up their hands in frustration and disgust and walk away. Unfortunately, this plays right into the hands of the controlling elite.
We are what we are:
And in my opinion, only getting worse.
As long as the control of this association continues as it does now, it is only going to get worse for every member. It is going to take a total member awareness and votes to make any meaningful change. The status quo continue to make sure that the members are not aware of the present situation and how we got here. I have tried to make a blog where the members can be informed, but in all reality, the status quo have used the blog as a way of spreading their propaganda in a venue they criticize.
The mess we are in:
Unless your new here, you know the mess. I could go on and on with a listing from water to trees.
Have we reached the point where it is time to end this failed homeowners association?
The momentum seems to be building in that direction. It is a shame because it didn't have to end this way. We may have reached the point where it is no longer worth it. They say..."You get the governance you deserve" Maybe so.
88 comments:
SHOA is like that timeshare you may have purchased in the past. Seemed like a good deal at the time but then you realized that you really got a lot more (or less) than you anticipated.
That's for sure.
Buying into a homeowner's association means that you are basically okay with the rules, policies and covenants of that association. It does not mean that you can buy and then change the rules to suit your personal preferences. Why is this so hard for some to understand?
If you want to improve how the association is being managed, step right up and work on the committees or volunteer to serve on the board. Attend meetings, read and be informed.
If you made an uninformed or unintended decision in buying into an association that has rules, policies and covenants do not coincide with your ideas of how things should be; you made a purchasing mistake and must decide to reconcile yourself or to sell out.
The discontent fostered by a few and supported by some on this blog does not give folks who made a purchasing mistake the right to change the rules that the majority of members agreed to and try to follow. Disbanding the association or changing the covenants, policies and etc. to satisfy a few who want different covenants, policies and etc. violates the rights and responsibilities of all those members who knew what they were doing when they made the decision to own a lot or lots in Surfside. You don't get to live by the laws in Oregon when you are in Washington. You have to follow the laws and rules of where you have chosen to be.
My 4:39 Impression.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Anger, hate, anger hate, anger hate.
This is 6:13. I forgot this part of my 4:39 impression. If you disagree with me, leave.
Thank you for your comment 4:39. Like you I bought here with my eyes opened and because I wanted to live here.
To 6:48, aka 6:13:.
That's not how it works. We like it here. If you don't you're the one who needs to move. So leave.
I love it here. I love the coast. Duh.
Make me move. Just try.
My 7:33 Impression
Anger hate, anger hate, anger hate.
If you disagree with me, leave. Hate, hate, hate.
439 - a few facts you conveniently left out:
The association is controlled by special interests that have taken over and pushed their agenda relentlessly, conveniently excluding 90% of the membership.
The covenants are totally controlled by the Board, with no ability for membership to change
The covenants have not been reviewed in years. This is by design, to keep the ruling junta in power.
Why do you expect us to play a game with a stacked deck, to be marginalized and ignored, and to LIKE it? Why would someone volunteer to be a part of this s**throw?
The same old people will vote in the same tired clowns.
Those of you who are pressing to have things change to favor what you want are welcomed to stay as long as you responsibly follow the existing covenants. Any covenant changes should be a matter of a decision by a TRUE majority of the association.
It is a rare thing that anyone who steps forward to serve on the board does not get enough votes to do so, one way or another. The facts are that few step forward. The facts are that the few who step forward are usually the exact type of folks that we do not want serving on the board because they are arrogant, self serving and without the integrity needed to really SERVE the association. As the blog host has noted, most people with integrity and intelligence have consistently turned away from serving on the board in disgust with and despair. The blog host has resigned TWICE from serving on the board.
And the same old B.S. stacked decked comments from you. Nobody stops anybody from voting. Nobody. 100% of the membership has the opportunity to vote. People like you keep making excuses and false accusations surrounding this. You want your own "junta" on the board? Then run for it or find someone you like to do so. Then find people who want them on the board to vote for them. Can you do that? No. All you do is sit back complain on a message board.
And BTW, like it or not your agenda is considered an special interest also.
To 6:13, 3:52's cute little anger hate. anger hate comments. At last years annual meeting there was only one group of people that was filled with anger and hate and put it on display for all to see. I'm sure you were one of its members.
I sent the following email to SHOA this morning. I sent it to Thomas Reber and cc to Gary Williams.
Tom:
Do you agree with Gary Williams that only the BOT will ever have the authority for governing document additions and amendments? Do you think it's right and good hoa policy to not require a majority vote of the members for governing document additions and amendments?
Mike Riley
Section 7. It shall be the duty of the board of trustees to appoint an Architectural Committee as contemplated by the "Surfside Estates, Restrictive Covenants," to provide for the enforcement of said covenants, and to appoint replacement and additional members to said Architectural Committee as may be necessary from time to time. The board of trustees shall also have the power to adopt, amend and revise existing or additional restrictive covenants from time to time which shall be applicable to all club members and all property within Surfside Estates.
The BOT holds all the cards in this HOA...nothing can change without their approval...read the by-laws...
I sent the following proposed resolutions to SHOA. They received them on April 25 and never contacted me per their own rules.
Motion for Amendment to the Governing Documents
Propose Amendment for Requiring A Majority Vote of Members for Amendments to the Governing Documents (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Supplementary CC&Rs, Articles of Incorporation, By Laws, Operating Procedures, and General Resolutions)
A Vote For:
A proposed amendment to the CC&Rs, Supplementary CC&Rs, Articles of Incorporation, By Laws, Operating Procedures, and General Resolutions requiring a majority vote of members for amendments to the CC&Rs, Supplementary CC&Rs, Articles of Incorporation, By Laws, Operating Procedures, and General Resolutions. Within 60 days the Surfside Board shall implement this proposed change.
This change includes the following:
CC&Rs
Section 9.0 Amendment: (Change This Section to the Following)
9.1 Delete This Sub-section
9.2 (Change to 9.1) The Board and members may amend these covenants in whole or part as specified in the Articles and By Laws; provided, however, that these covenants shall not be amended without prior notice and by a majority vote of the members.
9.3 (Change to 9.2) Notice of the proposed amendments shall be mailed to each member of record not less than thirty (30) days before vote date. The notice shall outline the nature of the proposed changes, state the changes in sharp, refined language, and state the time and place of the vote.
9.4 (Change to 9.3) Enactment of a resolution by approval of an amendment after notice and vote and its recordation with the Auditor of Pacific County, Washington shall constitute final action and amendment.
I sent SHOA the following proposed resolutions for the 2019 SHOA July Member Meeting. They received them on April 25 and never contacted me per their own rules.
Motion for Amendment to the Governing Documents
Proposed Amendment for Adding Vote by Mail Voting and Eliminating Proxy Voting for All Elections and Amendments to the Governing Documents (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Supplementary CC&Rs, Articles of Incorporation, By Laws, Operating Procedures, and General Resolutions)
A Vote For:
A proposed amendment to the CC&Rs, Supplementary CC&Rs, Articles of Incorporation, By Laws, Operating Procedures, and General Resolutions adding vote by mail voting and eliminating proxy voting for all elections and amendments to the CC&Rs, Supplementary CC&Rs, Articles of Incorporation, By Laws, Operating Procedures, and General Resolutions. Within 60 days the Surfside Board shall implement this proposed change.
This change includes the following:
Articles of Incorporation/By Laws (SHOA-Saved in One Single Document)
Amended November 16, 2002
Article IX Amendment: (Change This Section to the Following)
Notwithstanding any provision in the Bylaws of the corporation, the Bylaws of the corporation may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the corporation, after required notice has been given, by a majority vote of the members present at the meeting or vote by mail voting.
Article X Amendment: (Replace This Section to the Following)
1. At each meeting of the corporation at which any matter will be put to a vote, the Secretary of the corporation shall include, with the meeting notice, a vote by mail form for casting one’s votes.
2. Each vote by mail form must be signed by the member and received by the corporation the day before the vote date.
Article XI Amendment: (Change This Section to the Following)
Notwithstanding any provision in the Bylaws of the corporation, at all annual and special meetings of the corporation, ten per cent (10%) of all of the members of the corporation present at the meeting or represented at the meeting by vote by mail shall constitute a quorum.
This change also includes the following:
Articles of Incorporation/By Laws (SHOA-Saved in One Single Document)
Amended May 10, 1986
Article V Meetings Amendment: (Change This Section to the Following)
Section 5. A member may exercise his right to vote by mail voting. Trustees may not vote by proxy. Any member or trustee may waive notice of any meeting at any time.
I sent SHOA the following proposed resolutions for the 2019 SHOA July Member Meeting. They received them on April 25 and they contacted me per their own rules.
Motion for Reducing the Number of Trustees from 9 (Nine) to 5 (Five)
A Vote For:
Reduce the number of trustees from 9 (nine) to 5 (five). The vote notice for this vote shall provide a method to vote on reducing the number of trustees from 9 (nine) to 5 (five) and a method for identifying four current trustees by name for removal as a trustee. The top four current trustees identified by name, in terms of quantity of times being identified by name, by those voting to reduce the board size are removed as a trustee.
I sent SHOA the following proposed resolutions for the 2019 SHOA July Member Meeting. They received them on April 25 and never contacted me per their own rules.
Motion for Voluntary Dissolution of Surfside Homeowners Association being SURFSIDE ESTATES of Pacific County, Washington
Articles of Incorporation/By Laws (SHOA-Saved in One Single Document)
Amended November 16, 2002
Article II, 18. Generally, to do and perform any and all acts which may be either necessary or proper for or incidental to the exercise of any of the foregoing powers and such powers granted by the provisions of Title 24, Revised Code of Washington and other laws of the State of Washington relating to non-profit corporations.
A Vote For:
Voluntary dissolution of Surfside Homeowners Association being SURFSIDE ESTATES of Pacific County, Washington pursuant to Title 24 Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 24.03, Section 24.03.220(1).
I sent the following paragraph at the end of my proposed resolutions for the 2019 SHOA July Member Meeting letter to SHOA dated April 23. They received the letter on April 25. I have evidence showing SHOA received the letter on April 25.
Articles of Incorporation/By Laws (SHOA-Saved in One Single Document)
Amended November 16, 2002
Article II, 18. Generally, to do and perform any and all acts which may be either necessary or proper for or incidental to the exercise of any of the foregoing powers and such powers granted by the provisions of Title 24, Revised Code of Washington and other laws of the State of Washington relating to non-profit corporations.
Members
If you elect me to the SHOA BOT, I will pursue positive improvements for all with agile perserverance.
Mike Riley
Looks like Blagg has gone anonymous on this blog.
Those are all me.
Haven't you got it through your thick head yet. I WILL NEVER BE INTIMIDATED BY YOU!!! NEVER!!! It's too bad you don't have the integrity or courage to self identify.
Troll alert! Your negativity is only demeaning to yourself.
Had that mental health checkup yet? Maybe you can blame those results on Blagg as well.
Good work, Mr. Riley. You are the type of person we need.
Otherwise, just stick a fork in this association and call it done.
The new compliance person is gone and replaced with another. The old one only lasted a couple of weeks. We will see how long this one lasts.
He didn't like being told by de leest and Olds on how to do his job?
Thank you Mr. Riley. You are doing far more than any of the candidates in expressing your views, and trying to do something about it. Everything you say makes sense to me and long needed. You have my vote.
I'm reserving judgment on Mr. Riley. He sounds like a bully and a hot head.
He sounds like someone competent to make the changes that are badly needed around here.
Kinda scary for you, isn't it? Better a hothead than more clowns and syncophants.
Cox's and Riley's dreams for Surfside do not coincide with our dreams. We see lots of blown over trees and messy RV lots with deteriorating or blown over RV's creating more problems than we have currently.
Almost forgot to mention this -- Cox and Riley have both shown themselves to be hardheaded, blowhard bullies.
To 12:37 I would like you to show proof of blown over RVs like you claimed. Deterioration is the reputation of SHOA. You are a rude, radical, ranting clown to make such a statement. BTW: keep in mind the manners you were taught. You never address an adult by their last name. Its disrespectful! Steve and Mike must be given a chance to serve as the board is disgraceful that are seated now. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES FOR MIKE AND STEVE.
Take a look at old news reports regarding the storm here in 2007. Lot of things blew over including trailers and RV's. The winds were of hurricane force in many places near Astoria and on the Long Beach peninsula.
2:27 Just about everything blew over in that storm, don't selectively pick out RV's, there was quite a bit of other damage as well. I tour through Surfside quite frequently and to tell you the truth some of the RV lots are the cleanest in the community. Many more of the occasionally inhabited houses are in much worse shape. The worst looking lots are the ones that have cut their trees due to "getting the letter" and then chosen to leave the debris where it has fallen. If it didn't reuire being cut in the first place, it would look much better, and not block any precious views. did the new compliance guy really quit already? Thought he was hand picked. Maybe he couldn't stomach what the Board members (and the tree committee) wanted him to do.
Do not vote for Riley or Cox. We have witnessed Riley's temper at a board meeting when he didn't get his way and now his manifesto is published here on the blog, we have also experienced Cox's name calling know it all behavior here on the blog multiple times. That's all we need is these two on the board with their attitudes and rude behavior. Now I'm all for getting rid of Flood who does absolutely nothing as does Chandler who also wastes a seat at the table. Clancy does not deserve another seat as he has had his temper tantrums a few times and constantly talks down to folks not to mention the mess he headed up over at the water works.
I'm concerned about the Cox and Riley show also. New to the area, low investment (lot only). They have little to loose if things go south, or they ultimately don't get their way?
"If things go south?" Much further south and our toes will start to roast. I'm a quiet observer at the meetings and am still waiting to see positive change after 7 years. Maybe some new blood will right this ship.
Board members do not and should not be involved in the day to day operations of SHOA. They are in place to oversee and perform tasks that the paid employees don't. Volunteers should not have a full time job. Blame the executive board for poor hiring choices if you must.
7:21 and others.... You don't know what you're talking about. Steve Cox owns a condo on G Street, and has owned that property for 3 years. He has served his Lacey HOA Board for 5 years, served as vice-president of a 7 member Board for 3 years, and led a successful effort to change a burdensome covenant put in their CC&Rs by the developer of that neighborhood, removing an estimated $52,000 Reserve Study item from the books. It took over 2 years to accomplish and was not legally challenged, a credit to being methodical and fair.
Steve Cox is in no way affiliated with Mike Riley. Bear in mind that for those that enjoy poking and prodding reasonable people on the Blog, getting an "earful", or return of that abuse is what you deserve. Steve Cox has in no way sought to disrespect ANYONE who has been respectful to him and others on the Blog, so quit your whining and whimpering.
Steve Cox is well educated and understands fully, how to conduct himself in a professional manner. Most adults conduct themselves respectfully face to face, and we all expect to be treated respectfully in the HOA Boardroom. That doesn't mean some issues can't become "heated" or emotional. But the Blog is a free-for-all, and everyone should grasp that by now.
Mr Cox you are a loudmouth know it all bully that has called many people names in past blog posts. Why would the board want to put up with you? Go back to you condo Or better yet sell and go away!
Yes Steve, most of us have a picture of who you are from your blog posts. It has not been a pretty picture. Often you are belligerent and a bully as you persist to make your points with no regard for any opinions or evidence that might differ with you. The switching back and forth between anonymous and name disclosed posts has also been noticed as you press on to make your points. You are not my kinda guy because you are manipulative, bullying and dead set that your opinion is the only thing that matters. Move on, we need people who possess an open mind and willingness to cooperate to achieve results that well serve the majority of the association.
I tend to not agree with Mr. Cox on many things but I will say it's a smart move to distant himself from Riley.
To the Riley fan base some reminders.
He showed up late to a well publish budget board meeting. He then proceeded to disrupt it with his "all about me" attitude. He was even extremely rude to Mr. Turner, who is one of if not the most polite men in surfside, even as Mr. Turner tried to appease him. Then after people called Riley out on his behavior he turns it around and calls them bullies, a ploy he does frequently.
He then came on here and turned his anger against the older full
time folks, saying he couldn't wait for us all to die off.
He decided to run for the board, then decided to withdraw, then decided to run again. Would he even make it through a full term?
Submitted a stack of resolutions but couldn't be bother to show up at the meeting they were to be discussed at, something any reasonable and intelligent individual would have done. Will his lack of attendance carry over if he does get elected?
Likes to make grandiose statements about "integrity or courage to self identify" but makes numerous anonymous comments just like everyone else. In fact he is signing his name now probably because he was called out about this on another topic.
Then there are the other many comments made by him that are highly questionable at the least and would make a reasonable person cross the street if they saw him.
So, this is your Champion? This is the person you want representing you? God help us.
10:18 and 10:19.... It is interesting that you call me a bully for sticking to my views with conviction. I have no problem acknowledging other valid points of view, but those who attack me on the Blog never really have a solid counter argument, but want to insult me for making a strong case for my viewpoint.
I suggest you re-read your comments here, both of you being very insulting and derogatory, offering no evidence as usual, of the validity of your comments. What I know for certain is, that both of you are very concerned that anything about Surfside policy might change in any way, reflecting the Board's awareness that policy in Surfside has been driven by J place interests, at all other owner's expense.
A well established system of owners provide signed blank proxies which are delivered to the so-called "Executive Board" (pres., Vice-pres.,Sec. and Treas.) annually packing the ballot box for pals of the BOT majority. With only about 300 owners voting annually, it's pretty easy to fix the elections, and it has been going on for a while now.
No one has the courage to buck the system, and the only candidates welcome on the Board are those who will follow along like sheep with the BOT majority. Most owners who vote are satisfied so long as the status-quo is maintained, the beloved Tree Policy is left in place for the J Placers to feel superior and elite, and RVers are kept in their place, their shed eaves micro-controlled by the covenants.
Houses in Surfside vary wildly in design and color, but SHEDS - oh we've got to keep tight control on their design at all costs. (The HOA lost 2 Small Claims attempts to force one owner to remove a small porch on his shed, then took him to Superior Court at a cost of about $100,000, withdrawing the suit before it went to Court).
And the Tree Committee has been on a tear, making a mess of the community, when NONE of the tree cutting has any effect on anyone's views. This systematic destruction of member's private property has made the community look bizaare, much like a Dr. Seuss world of 14 foot umbrella trees. The community is permanently damaged, as are property values, as a result of this idiotic policy. Keep on doin' what yer doin' Surfside !! Way to go !!
It is unlikely that the membership will ever know just how much the BOT has spent on foolish legal issues this year, but it is surely around $200,000 to a quarter million dollars in wasteful spending of member money. We still do not know when the Federal Investigation of Surfside Trustees and policy will end, and at what cost. Your Board will not disclose the truth.
It doesn't have to be this way. Honest people do not govern their neighbors by subterfuge and hidden agendas.
One would hope that there is insurance which paid for the lion's share of the legal costs in Surfside. I know we were paying for this type of coverage in the past.
Mr Cox again you go on and on , I guess you have something to say about everything? And you must like to hear yourself talk. You are the bully and god help us If you get elected!
300 - bully time is over. You're trolling of Board candidates show you for the bitter, hateful person you are. Now add scared to the list. People of competence are showing up, and will blow up the shell game this Association has become. You must be terrified.
BTW - stop using the word 'we'. You're just a single blowhard.
3:00.... You are a weakling and bitter about it. I am confident and that bothers you. I know what I am talking about and that makes you uncomfortable, and frankly, you're afraid of change and progress based on sound principles. I feel sorry for you.
Change can be the result of planning and people openly negotiating and working together to find solutions, or by ignoring the need to change and make adjustments, change WILL come, but in the form of an uncontrolled disaster, indifferent to convenience, pretense of social status or wealth.
This past year has been as close to a total disaster as this community has ever come, yet most members are oblivious to the massive management failure that has taken place, and the on-going Federal Investigation. Surfside Trustees are all complicit in a cover-up, and it continues without owner protest, will continue, and squander member funds at will in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's a sad and desperate scene.
9:48:
Some experts say there is a correlation between illeism and narcissism. Your comment seems to provide evidence to that being a truth.
Why do you keep making the false statement against the tree committee? To say they are responsible for making a mess of the community is a flat out lie. You want to blame the covenant, fine. You want to blame someone making a complaint even if that is their right, fine, at least that is somewhat applicable. Of course you would ignore the fact that some members don't follow the covenants they agreed to when they bought here, typical. But your crusade and nasty comments aimed at a group who volunteer their time here is appalling.
When have you volunteered any time for the community? Other then the last one, when have you ever bothered to show up at a board meeting? The only volunteering it appears you have done since moving here is your opinions on here.
And you are a proud Tree Committee member ? Anyone on the Committee is committed to the perpetuation of this disaster of a policy. Don't like it ? Tough. This is bad policy and needs to stop now. I'm not ignoring any facts I assure you. The covenants do not protect anyone's views, and we all know that's why the policy exists. You're living in a fantasy that ANYTHING good comes of this- it doesn't.
The State of Washington does not sanction protection of views as community policy. This policy is a violation of owner's private property rights, and you are enforcing a LIE that this has anything at all to do with views, when it is about privilege and creating a false social order. Stick it !!
Mr Cox here you go again, on and on about how good you are , how much you have done in the past, blah blah blah! We on J Place pay three times the taxes you do, and yes I have a view and the county taxes me for it! These lots were sold as view property when Surfside was initiated and I aim to keep my view for as long as I can thank you very much. You spout all your nonsense but when it comes right down to it if folks were to trim their trees per the height requirements there would be no problem and it would not require tree topping which everyone knows is not good for the trees that grow out here like I weeds. If you don't do anything for years and let your trees go then you deserve what you get, a complaint! So go away before you embarrass yourself even more! Go enjoy your condo and stay out of the boardroom.
If you look at Stevie's place in Lacey you would see he likes living in a jungle. Many here actually like to see the area around us and with the high winds don't want to deal with tree damage.
Nice attitude, as usual. Quite the keyboard warrior.
I'm sorry Mr Cox, I meant O'Neil and Riley have lots only. You live on G'st with the so called "elite" and "entitled" rest of us.
But your constant ranting still doesn't not get my vote.
11:06 I appreciate your desire for a "view". To support your position, perhaps you can provide us with a logical explanation as to why the heights on I street are limited to 16 feet or in certain places 20 feet, when G street is allowed to go to 24 feet. I have never understood the reasoning behind that limitation. It is apparent that whomever made that decision never took geometry in school. Although the county may tax you at a higher rate, I sincerely doubt that your taxes are three times what the rest of us pay (my valuation just went up by an additional 15% on my shack). Oh by the way, "you knew that when you bought here". Sound familiar? Plus I doubt your taxes will drop if the trees in some restricted areas went to 24 feet or even higher, still not restricting your "view". How do you manage to see over G Street and the Dunes? By the way, I can't seem to find the map showing the height locations on the Surfside website any more. Did they take it off? Where can it be found online?
Stick it, really Cox? How mature of you. Always go for the insult when you want to avoid a question.
You are ignoring facts. To continue attacking a group of volunteers in this community because in your wee mind you hold them responsible for a covenant you don't like is wrong, no matter how you want to spin it.
Most of the volunteers on the Tree Committee, like on other committees, also volunteer in other areas for the community. I ask again, what have you done since moving here? Is that how you are going to treat volunteers if you get elected? Nice to know. If you are not going to be respectful then why should anyone be respectful towards you?
No, I'm not a member of the Tree Committee and now I'm going to lower myself to your immature bottom feeding level and say this. Be thankful I'm not you fat POS.
11:06.... You don't pay any more taxes than anyone else in Surfside. Taxes are based on estimated home values and are taxed at a given rate throughout the County. 12:32... What kind of strange pervert are you anyway ? Seeking out my home to look at it ? Like most Lacey residential neighborhoods, our backyard is surrounded by cedar fence, so most of our yard is not visible from the street.
We had to take out two large trees this year, so we now have 3 mature trees and a small Magnolia tree on a corner lot. Our lawn has been seriously damaged by drought and related factors in successive years, so we put in a lawn sprinkler system and had our lawn reconditioned. We take good care of our place and plan to continue living here, and in Surfside.
You know nothing about me, or our home, so your statement is just weird - and of no substance.
And best of all my little buddy 9:18....boy, what a great ride, this strand huh ? It's bizarre that you think that taunting me and cursing me, still puts you on a more sophisticated plane. You are not rational, so I don't want or need your vote. You are happy with the dysfunctional HOA we have, so we'll see where that goes.
Keep cutting and pasting the old same tired rhetoric. The tree committee has divided this community is like nothing has in the last 20 years.
Serving on committees and boards to feather your own self interests do not really count.
As time POS's we defer to your superior knowledge of them, considering the company you keep.
Well stated, Mr. Cox. You have my vote!
Well 10:19, since being on here with the likes of you and Mr. Know it All Above I agree with your comment. I do have a superior knowledge of POS's.
You should probably read a little closer. I am deftly not part of your 'company'.
In a democracy as it is intended, dialogue, discussion, argument, exchange of ideas, proposals, solutions, are all part of the process we are all expected to participate in. Effective representative governance depends on thinking people showing they are capable of disagreeing respectfully, for the sake of finding compromise solutions.
So 6:39, you're mighty proud of your boldness as an anonymous commenter, but you are obviously gutless without the cloak of anonymity. You are obviously weak on communication skills, as you consider those who have opinions different from your's "pieces of sh*t". Do you know how weak that is ? No one is impressed by your claim of prowess.
To Mr Cox.
Unlike you and some others, I don't come on here every day. I've listed above in the name the 2 comments I made which were in response to yours.
Go back and reread my 7:26 comment. It was in response to your 12:16 where you once again attacked and blamed a group of volunteers on a committee for a covenant you don't agree with, saying THEY are responsible for making a mess of Surside, which just isn't true. I don't agree with that and stated clearly why. By using your logic then should the Arch committee be blamed for me not being able to build a 3 or 4 story house? No. Most reasonable people understand that. So again, that comment wasn't about the covenants, it was about your wrongful attacks on volunteers.
Let me repeat that since you continue to ignore my point. It wasn't about the covenants, it was about the wrongful attacks on volunteers. Also as you reread that 7:26 comment notice that nowhere did I say anything derogatory towards you.
Now look at your response @ 9:13. You basically repeated the same thing as before, ignoring my point and doubling down with your attack on volunteers, and I might add also ignoring my question about what have you volunteered for in our community since you moved here. Then to end it you told me to "stick it". Now maybe that means something different in your world but in mine and most anyone else's it means to insert something into a body orifice. Most people would find that derogatory and insulting, again something I didn't do to you in my 7:26 comment.
For some stupid reason I decided to try and reiterate my point @ 9:18 along with my question concerning what have you volunteered for here. The last part with the POS reference was in response to your "stick it" comment which I also made clear. If you wouldn't have went that route I wouldn't have made it. Unfortunately though I took the bait. Then, as you usually do you went the "I'm the victim" route in your 10:06 comment attacking me, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was YOU that threw the first mud.
Again, the purpose behind my comments was concerning the attacks on volunteers. I have lived here longer and seen more Trustees and committee members than most of the current new vocal individuals that are on here now have. And while I may not have agreed with some of their actions I have always appreciated the fact that they donate their free time to our community. I feel they should be applauded for doing so and not insulted and definitely not held accountable for a covenant when they don't even hold a position on the board.
I apologize for others having to read this long comment but I'm tired of my point being ignore and twisted into something it wasn't along with being accused of being bizarre and irrational from someone who decided to insult me first. I'm fully aware that Mr. Cox will more than likely ignore all this again and also turn his ire on me since he always has to have the last word.
To that my "little buddy", go for it and have your fun. I'm done.
The point is, some volunteers on some committees are perpetuating bad policy and Doing so for their own benefit at the expense of others. No altruism there.
Volunteering to support your own self interests doesn't really count.
Who's counting what?
This place is hopeless. Dissolution is the only answer.
I bought my three bedroom/two bathroom home on G Street for $125,000. Granted it was 18 years ago. So does that make me an elitist? As a former board member I was handed a few (very few) proxies to sign off on. I think only one was blank and a couple allowed me to vote on floor items as I saw fit. The stuffed ballot box comments are not factual in the least. If you turn it in totally blank and don't assign it to a trusted friend or neighbor (who will attend by the way) you are a fool.
Up until July 2017, the proxies were only given to the "Executive Board" or Prez, Vice, Sec, and Treas. The accounts of improprieties come from former Board members, so not likely false. But we hear that Trustees have been canvasing for their preferred candidates on J Place routinely each year, not against any rules, but obviously improper. They know who the full-time owners are, and can easily organize a group of solicitors.
The BOT is actively in cover-up mode, while spending freely, member funds on legal counsel, having been dropped by the last insurance company for excessive claims, they are unconcerned about how much is being spent. It says a great deal about our community, that those who vote will gladly put a rubber stamp on the continued practices and refusal to commit to full transparency as is required by State Law.
Steve Cox said...
11:06.... You don't pay any more taxes than anyone else in Surfside. Taxes are based on estimated home values and are taxed at a given rate throughout the County.
Taxes are based on the selling price of a home, not estimated. Any future changes will be based on the initial home value + current home sales figures in the county.
Any home with a ocean view will be worth more than a similar home without the view and the taxes will reflect the difference.
Taxes are based on the estimated value of your home. These estimates are generally lower than the selling prices run. But homes on the ridge vary greatly in value, many around $300,000, some far more. Homes on the westside of G St. also run the gamut pricewise.
Any property over 20 feet elevation on J Pl. will have a view, unaffected by trees more than a block away, and houses on G St. 24 feet tall may be on 5 or 6 feet of elevated land - so views are compromised by building standards, which allow homes to be about 8 feet apart. There is no need for a tree policy. Dunes are as high as 26 ft. in places, also compromising views.
There is no covenant that guarantees views, and in the absence of the Tree Policy, anyone can file a complaint that their "view" is obstructed, but would be required to prove that it is so. Eliminating the current policy would be a healthy thing for the community, though all of the community's trees have been methodically decimated, and they will never be attractive and well proportioned, much of the basic beauty that humans USUALLY enjoy.
There is no defense of continuing these restrictions, as they create misery and force owners to waste money topping and killing their trees which could be used to make improvements to their property, or address deferred maintenance issues.
Those who live on the ridge pay no more taxes than anyone else. For those who have especially good views, it has nothing to do with tree restrictions. And wonderful for you that you have greater value because of your location. Owning mean-tide lots also adds value. But we don't get to demand the Dunes be removed.
Steve Cox said...
Taxes are based on the estimated value of your home. These estimates are generally lower than the selling prices run. But homes on the ridge vary greatly in value, many around $300,000, some far more. Homes on the westside of G St. also run the gamut pricewise.
Any property over 20 feet elevation on J Pl. will have a view, unaffected by trees more than a block away, and houses on G St. 24 feet tall may be on 5 or 6 feet of elevated land - so views are compromised by building standards, which allow homes to be about 8 feet apart. There is no need for a tree policy. Dunes are as high as 26 ft. in places, also compromising views.
At least you are consistent...always wrong... http://pacificwa.taxsifter.com/
As someone who lives on J I can tell you your statement on trees and views is also wrong.
So tired of correcting your falsehoods...I would rather you shut up then continue to post absolute lies on here!
The Sunday Olympian has an article on how these ESTIMATES are calculated, there being several factors, including former sales in the area. You pay the same rate as everyone else in Surfside, based on your estimated home value. I am NOT incorrect. The rest is just common sense, something you are entirely lacking. You are only concerned about yourself.
Don't like the truth huh ? That's really tough. Don't come on the Blog insisting you are right when you don't know what you're talking about.
It's comments like 1:00 that give all j placers a bad rap, when most are not that way. Most know they will continue to have a good view even if the trees are left to grow. Steve is not wrong, you are.
Just because you live on J Place doesn't mean you are at a high enough elevation to be considered a VIEW property. The math does not support such a claim. The highest point on the ridge is only about 45 feet elevation, and much of J place is not very high. There are NO guaranteed views in Surfside, and the State of Washington does not approve of or sanction communities requiring tree cutting on neighboring properties to augment anyone's views.
In most urban areas such as Portland, Vancouver, Seattle.... if mediation is necessary, and it is agreed that tree cutting or trimming will take place, the party requesting the cutting pays for the work done. You are not well informed.
We are sick and tired of Cox's rants. Give us all a break and shut the hell up Steve. Most of us have decided not to vote for Cox because of his rants on the blog. He has no self awareness about how he comes across when going on and on about his sometimes misinformed opinions and short temper. Shot himself in the foot a long time ago.
I find your incessant whining irritating and pitiful. When given facts supporting my point of view, you ignore them and whine about "ranting" and "attacks", when all that is being said is statement of opinion based on facts. There is no ranting, and there are no attacks.
You are mighty determined to portray me as something I am not, which tells me you are one of these paranoid status-quo folks, who are terrified someone might influence the BOT to end the absurd tree topping, or insist on Board transparency and restrained legal spending. Yep, I'm one crazy radical, expecting all members to be treated fairly, and our governance to be honest and transparent. Wild stuff, right ?
Sounds like someone is worried Steve, or why would they bother.
This is what I don't get. Ever watch any of those real estate shows on HGTV? I see them say it's a view property with a fraction of area that most if not all on J have. How can anyone argue that they don't have a view property? If you can stand on someones deck, look directly West and can still see the ocean almost 90 degrees either North or South, how is that not a view?
Actually, Steve's comments are timely and accurate, unlike the hysterical whining of his detractor.
He's scaring you even more, isn't he? You might have sent Riley away, but apparently Mr Cox is made of sterner stuff
Steve Cox - Thank you for the anonymous comment at 6:15. You are fooling only a few really dense members. The rest of us have got you figured out.
8:01.... For as smart as you think you are, there is no comment at 6:15, and I made only one anonymous comment at 8:35. It's funny too that you claim to have "figured (me) out". I have been an open book of my views, so am entirely honest and transparent about my opinions, which are not at all radical.
So your fear of change is obvious and pitiful. If you can't have undo influence on community policy, you'll just have a fit. In contrast to me, you're just another person unwilling to own your opinions and snarky comments.
With some basic computer knowledge easy way to determine IP address and more info on anonymous posters. Gravatar search of like phrases and styles, and there's a basic web tracker script I use at work that has assisted me on this blog. Will share info soon.
8:59 is just another attempt to get people to not post a comment. Let's start with yours 8:59. You fool no one but yourself.
Just offering some info, no skin off my back, I want people to keep posting. I dont even own property in Surfside but my readers of other postings love this stuff.
Only one 8:34? Yeah right. Maybe only on this topic.
Cox and his little friend Riley post as anonymous many times while getting up on their high horses criticizing others for doing the same. Typical hypocrites.
Since I know I will get the usual attacks, when you do so tell me what else would you call it?
I call your comment 11:36, BS. If you don't like the usual attacks, then stop making the same old tired comments. You are the definition of hypocrite. Hey dumb ass, I am not Steve or little Riley, just a nobody, who is sick and tired of people like you and this miserable concentration camp called Surfside. Thank you Steve for having the courage and integrity to speak the truth. You have my vote.
And 1136, there a more than a few of us. Blame yourself. Your hatred has fed it.
859 - if you knew as much as you think you do...ignore the obvious intimidation ploy, it's as old as the tenure of our Board.
1000 - since you don't live here, how about butting out? We we have enough clowns stirring the pot here, we don't need to import them.
Post a Comment